DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment and argument filed 09/15/2025, in response to the non-final rejection, are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Any previous rejection or objection not mentioned herein is withdrawn.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 68, 76-80, 82, 86, 89-98, 100-107, 111-112, 115-116 and 130 are pending of which claims 1-2 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/18/2024.
The species were elected: plaque psoriasis, biological macromolecule, antibody, interleukin receptors, IgG2, brodalumab and IL-17RA in the response filed on 03/18/2024.
Claims 7-8, 68, 76-80, 82, 86, 89-98, 100-107, 111-112, 115-116 and 130 are being examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 7-8, 66, 68, 76-80, 82, 86-98, 100-107, 111-112, 115-116 and 130 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villani (US20100297095A1), Jeon et. al. (Monoclonal antibodies inhibiting IL-12, -23, and -17 for the treatment of psoriasis, Hum Vaccin Immunother, V.13(10); 2017, Sep), Stevens and Cowin (Overcoming the challenges of topical antibody administration for improving healing outcomes: a review of recent laboratory and clinical approaches, Wound Practice and Research, Vol 25 No 4, December 2017) hereinafter Stevens and Chen Ming (CN105999535A). This rejection is maintained with slight modifications to take-into-account the amendments filed on 09/15/2025.
Villani’s general disclosure is to Porifera-based therapeutic compositions for treating skin diseases (see abstract).
Regarding claims 7-8 and 68, Villani teaches of Spongilla species and formulations (see abstract, claim 1, etc.) for being applied topically daily, multiple times a day, weekly or monthly and known for the treatment of a wide variety of skin conditions such as acne vulgaris, rosacea, seborrheic dermatitis, eczema (atopic dermatitis), psoriasis, photo-aging and actinic keratosis (see 0035). Villani also teaches wherein the composition comprises from 1 to 1.5 grams of substantially pure Spongilla powder (see 0045) and this is within the instantly claimed range. Villani also teaches wherein the size of the Spongilla are reduced to an average size of 0.2mm (see 0093).
Regarding the limitations which require a “kit”, Villani teaches including product labeling and/or package inserts approved by the FDA (see 0067) which in the broadest reasonable interpretation would imply a kit since a “kit” itself is not well defined in the instant application.
Regarding claims 7-8, 79 and 130, Villani teaches that Spongilla is compounded with other active ingredients such as antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, antiseptics, hydrogen peroxide, boric acid anesthetics, coral powder, white seaweed powder, green seaweed powder, enzyme gel, and jojoba oil (see 0042). This would imply a second composition with one or more drugs and wherein the drug was not a botulinum toxin, antibiotic, antiseptic or anesthetics because jojoboa oil, coral powder, green seaweed powder and enzyme gel are not necessarily categorized as such. Furthermore, an enzyme would be considered a biological macromolecule.
Villani teaches the Spongilla as a powder (see claims 9-20) and teaches sieving and sizing the sponge to be pure (see 0058).
Regarding claim 90, Villani teaches the sponge mass is dried until residual moisture content is less than 10% (see 0091).
Regarding claim 91-96, Villani teaches that testing includes microbiological culturing for pathogens, coliform organisms and bioburden (see 0092).
Regarding claim 97, Villani teaches including product labeling and/or package inserts approved by the FDA (see 0067) which would imply packaging prior to use.
Regarding claim 98, Villani teaches “The weighed material is then exposed to a heat source such as a drying oven or heat lamp operated at a temperature sufficient to evaporate any remaining free or loosely bound water (non-chemically bound)” (see 0091).
Regarding claim 101-105, Villani teaches a solution of hydrogen peroxide (see claims 12-20) and teaches 3% hydrogen peroxide (see claim 13-20).
Regarding claim 106, Villani teaches Spongilla lacustris (see 0041).
Villani teaches “In yet another embodiment of the present invention the therapeutic composition comprises from 1 to 1.5 grams of substantially pure Spongilla powder” (see 0045).
Regarding claim 111, Villani teaches creating the formulation into a paste consistency (see 0113, 0123, 0138-0139).
Regarding claim 112, Villani teaches the water and saline to be comprised in the formulation with the Spongilla powder (see 0096-0097, 0113, 0115).
Regarding claim 115-116, Villani teaches “all of the liquids used herein are aqueous based and contain low percentages of solute” (See 0098) and teaches a paste consistency along with hydrogen peroxide (see above).
Vinalli teaches the method of treating a disease comprising applying to the skin of a subject a first composition comprising Spongilla and a second composition comprising a therapeutically effective amount of one or more drugs, however does not teach the drug to be an antibody or teach that the Spongilla are substantially uniform in size.
Jeon’s general disclosure is a scientific report on monoclonal antibodies for treatment of psoriasis (see abstract).
Jeon teaches “The current armamentarium of psoriasis treatment includes topical therapies, phototherapy, oral immunosuppressive therapies, and biologic agents. Over the past 2 decades, there has been rapid development of novel biologic therapies for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. This article will review the role of IL-12, IL-23, and IL-17 in the pathogenesis of psoriasis and the monoclonal antibodies (ustekinumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, guselkumab, tildrakizumab, and risankizumab) that target these cytokines in the treatment of this disease” (see abstract).
Jeon teaches, “Impaired T-cell activity contributes to hyperproliferation and abnormal differentiation of keratinocytes. The keratinocytes then recruit dendritic cells to release interleukin (IL)-12 and 23. IL-22 and IL-23 then activate 2 types of T-cells: T helper 1 (Th1) and T helper 17 (Th17), which release the psoriatic cytokines IL-17, interferon (IFN)-γ, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, and IL-22.” (see Introduction).
Jeon also teaches “Brodalumab (AMG 827, Siliq®, Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Bridgewater Township, NJ) is a fully human IgG2 anti-IL-17RA monoclonal antibody. It binds with high affinity to human IL-17RA, which leads to a disruption in the IL-17 pathway by blocking the activity of IL-17A, IL-17F, IL-17A/F heterodimer, IL-17C, and IL-25 molecules” (see Brodalumab). This indicates the drug works as an interleukin receptor antagonist.
Jeon also teaches “The 3 anti-IL-17 agents currently available for treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis are ixekizumab, secukinumab, and brodalumab” (see IL-17 inhibitors).
Jeon teaches that etanercept “TNFα inhibitors, such as the fusion protein etanercept (Enbrel) and the monoclonal antibodies adalimumab (Humira) and infliximab (Remicade), make up the first class of biologic agents” for treatment against plaque psoriasis (see introduction).
Stevens’s general disclosure is a report on overcoming the challenges of topical antibody administration (see abstract).
Stevens teaches “Therapeutic antibodies present numerous opportunities for the treatment of wounds and cutaneous conditions; however, they have not been widely adopted due to the difficulty of administering antibodies through the skin. Local antibody administration to the skin may result in fewer side effects, reduce cost of therapy and be less invasive than systemic methods and recent advances in antibody engineering have addressed many stability and formulation challenges. Penetration of the epidermal barrier is crucial to effective delivery of antibodies and other protein drugs and can be achieved through chemical or physical methods. Chemical penetration enhancement is poorly suited for delivery of large hydrophilic molecules such as antibodies; however, enhancers based on surfactants or terpenes may improve antibody delivery to the dermis and novel cell-penetrating peptides provide opportunities for well-tolerated local antibody delivery” (see abstract).
Stevens teaches “Terpene-based PEs function by associating with lipid ECM and increasing the fluidity of this phase. While it has been demonstrated terpene-based PEs with low lipophilicity may stabilize protein drugs, this effect may be dependent on the physiochemical characteristics of the protein.
Surfactants have the ability to solubilize hydrophilic molecules in a hydrophobic phase and have successfully been used for delivery of drugs such as insulin with no appreciable loss of activity. However, effective doses of surfactants have been demonstrated to cause skin irritation, thus it is likely surfactants must be combined with another PEs to provide effective delivery and protein stability with reduced irritation” (see left column 191).
Stevens teaches “Microneedle pretreatment has improved the penetration of peptides, anti-cancer agents and anti-scarring agents and seems amenable to the application of large biologics such as antibodies” (see 1st para. 192).
Ming’s disclosure is to the use of sponge spicules as skin physical penetration enhancers (see abstract).
Ming teaches “The invention discloses an application of a sponge spicule as a skin physical penetration enhancer, and relates to a sponge spicule. The sponge spicule skin physical penetration enhancer composition can be directly smeared onto cleaned skin. The skin physical penetration enhancer can overcome a skin stratum corneum barrier, and promote percutaneous absorption of active components in a medicament, a vaccine and a cosmetic; the active components can enter each layer of the skin or enter the whole body for blood circulation absorbed by skin capillary vessel/lymphatic vessel; the skin physical penetration enhancer can be used for skin local administration or whole body administration, or can be used in skin care cosmetics to increase percutaneous absorption of medicament and active components” (see abstract).
Ming teaches that the composition can be used as a physical skin penetrating agent for dermal drug physical enhancement (see summary of the invention, p 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to persons skilled in the art at the effective filing date to create the instant invention based on Villani’s disclosure because Villani teaches compositions comprising Spongilla for treating skin conditions and teaches additional active drugs such as hydrogen peroxide, boric acid anesthetics, coral powder, white seaweed powder, green seaweed powder, enzyme gel, and jojoba oil. These components would act as biological macromolecules and/or proteins. Creating two compositions, one which comprises the Spongilla and the other to comprise of the one or more of the other drugs just discussed is a mere modification which any person having skill in the art could undertake given the relied upon art. Creating powders that can pass through a US-70 mesh screen or to have uniform size and an average length of about 200 um to about 350 um, an average diameter of 5 um to 20 um, or an aspect ratio from 1 to 100 are all optimizations that are well within the purview of the skilled artisan, especially since Villani teaches creating powders from sieving and sizing to purify the product and teaches the size to be on average 0.2mm or 200 um.
It would have been obvious to use the sponge spicules of Villani to not only treat psoriasis but to be used as a penetration enhancer for other drugs that are useful in treating psoriasis because Ming teaches that sponge spicules can indeed assist with drug delivery.
It would have been obvious to use the sponge of Villani as both a treatment and as a physical penetration enhancer because as discussed by Stevens, physical penetration enhancers are useful for assisting in the delivery of antibodies in topical applications. These are known in the art for helping larger proteins to pass through the epidermis and dermal layers of the skin. Ming additionally teaches that sponge spicules are useful as physical penetration enhancers for drugs.
It would have also been obvious to have a combined aerobic, anaerobic, yeast, mold and bacterial microbial content of not more than 25 x 104 CFU/g and, to use gamma radiation prior to packaging because Villani teaches testing for and culturing microbiological pathogens, coliform organisms and bioburden which comply with good manufacturing practices and thus the instant limitations are ways known in the art for making sure the microbial level is contained. Additionally, doing so at the amount being claimed would have been obvious for reasons of making sure the product does not have any microbial growth. It would have also been obvious to heat the composition at the instantly claimed time and temperature because Villani teaches heating the product to sufficiently evaporate any remaining free or loosely bound water.
It would have been obvious to have the kit comprise of a third composition because Villani teaches of other active components such as boric acid anesthetics, coral powder, white seaweed powder, green seaweed powder, enzyme gel, and jojoba oil which each could be used in their own application or comprised in its own composition.
It would also have been obvious to persons skilled in the art to select antibodies, that would bind to IL-17 to inhibit disruption of the IL-17 pathway which is a known treatment of psoriasis as taught by Jeon. It would further been obvious to select brodalumab as the antibody as the component in the second composition because it is one of 3 anti-IL-17 agents currently available for treating moderate-to-sever plaque psoriasis and is known to have a high-affinity binding to IL-17A, a known pathway which is disrupted in plaque psoriasis.
It is obvious to combine treatments known for the same disease, ie. treatments targeting plaque psoriasis. One would expect that a known sponge treatment applied to the skin which treats psoriasis at the surface to be combined with a second composition for treating the molecular targets of psoriasis would be more effective than either one alone.
It would have also been obvious to choose a protein being selected from etanercept, abatacept, rilonacept, and anakinra for the second composition because these are known effective drugs for treatment of plaque psoriasis and selecting this to be administered for treating such a disease would have been prima facie obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the art does not teach the size of the Spongilla to be within the same range as what is newly amended. Villani teaches the size to be 0.2mm which equates to 200 um and the applicant claims the length at 200 um to 350 um. Villani does not describe the average diameter of the spicules most likely because many are not round, spherical, or geometrical in nature and thus the measurement may not apply. The applicant argues that the Spongilla of Villani’s art would be too small to act in the same manner to create microchannels in the skin that would allow for biological macromolecules to penetrate. The applicant has provided no data to show that this would actually be the case and the statement would necessarily argue against the applicant’s own invention since they claim the range of 200 um as being effective. The applicant argues that it is through extensive discovery work that they have found that the size of Spongilla spicule for facilitating topical application of proteins and antibodies works surprisingly better than any other size for topical application. The applicant would be advised to submit any data if they believe it to help an argument of unexpected and improved advantages over the art because the art already teaches ranges at the bottom of what is claimed (200 um) size.
The applicant argues that Stevens teaches away from using different penetration enhancers and thus persons having ordinary skill in the art would not rely upon his art for trying any of the discussed methods of enhancing penetration of antibodies into the skin. For instance the applicant argues against the use of surfactants because Stevens describes wherein in some cases they have caused skin irritation. Stevens also teaches how to remedy the issue by combining the surfactants with other penetration enhancers to reduce irritation. The applicant argues that the use of microneedling as a PE is completely different than the instant invention because it requires a handheld device. This may be true however the applicant does not exclude this from the claims and uses claim language which allows for such devices. Persons having ordinary skill would rely on Stevens and be able to decide which PE would be best for assisting absorption of antibodies into the skin. One would not have to rely on a single embodiment. Also if the art teaches Spongilla to be within the claimed size range as what is disclosed as effective for PE then the same would be inherent to the prior arts Spongilla.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 7-8, 86-98, 99-107, 111-112, 115-116 and 130 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. US17/251155 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending application No. US17/251155 recites, methods, dual combination products and kits which require the same Spongilla composition and additionally a composition comprising of a drug (botulinum toxin) which overlaps with the broad instantly claimed “one or more drugs” of the instantly claimed invention. The claims of both cases are broad enough to have overlapping scope and the use of the dual composition comprising of Spongilla and botulinum toxins to be applied to the skin would read on the instantly claimed drug product comprising a first composition and a second composition, wherein said first composition comprises Spongilla, and said second composition comprises one or more drugs in an amount effective to treat a skin condition in a subject. Although the instantly elected species is to plaque psoriasis and copending application is to hyrerhidrosis, the overall treatment of skin conditions with the widely broad instantly claimed limitations of one or more drugs would make obvious to swap one treatment for the other as the instantly claimed invention is merely a product. The intended use would have been obvious from the Markush group listing in the instant claim 68.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 7-8, 86-98, 99-107, 111-112, 115-116 and 130 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5, 8-10, 18-19, 23, 34, 38, 40, 42-54, 56, 60, 64-69, 71-72, 75-78, 84-87, 113 of copending Application No. US17/420635 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications are drawn to a composition comprising Spongilla and a second composition comprising a drug for treating a skin condition. The instantly claimed is a first composition comprising Spongilla and a second composition comprising one or more drugs and the copending application is a first composition comprising Spongilla and a second composition comprising a fluidizing agent. When so broadly claimed the second composition of both applications can be hydrogen peroxide which is both a fluidizing agent and a drug. Furthermore, both applications claim this component (see instant claims 102-105 and 116 and copending claims 34, 38, 40 and 85). Acne vulgaris is also made obvious over the instant claim 68 as this is listed in the Markush grouping.
The additional elements for treating different acne lesions, or the improvements from the treatment, different applications etc. are all obvious components given each coppending application. The broad instant limitations to a drug composition comprising a drug product comprising a first composition and a second composition, wherein said first composition comprises Spongilla, and said second composition comprises one or more drugs in an amount effective to treat a skin condition in a subject would encompass the copending claims because the copending claims would be the same and a mere intended use of the composition would not distinguish one product from the other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 7-8, 86-98, 99-107, 111-112, 115-116 and 130 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-22 of copending Application No. US17546001 (reference application) in view of Landau (2006 Journal of Cosemtic Dermatology 5: 121-126; IDS 03.15.22 in copending app.). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications are drawn to a composition comprising Spongilla and a second composition comprising a drug for treating a skin condition. The broad instant limitations to a drug composition comprising a drug product comprising a first composition and a second composition, wherein said first composition comprises Spongilla, and said second composition comprises one or more drugs in an amount effective to treat a skin condition in a subject would encompass the copending claims because the copending claims would be the same and a mere intended use of the composition would not distinguish one product from the other. It is also obvious to use a botulinum toxin with Spongilla as Landau discloses combining chemical peels with BTX-A (botulinum toxin A) injections having synergistic beneficial effect (at least p. 121, 125) and discloses a medium-depth peel comprising powder from Spongilla fluviatilis. Furhtermore, the intended use of copending application for treating hyperhidrosis is made obvious from the instant Markush group of instantly claimed 68.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 7-8, 86-98, 99-107, 111-112, 115-116 and 130 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 39, 69-81, 85-94 U.S. Patent No. US17628810 in view of Landau (2006 Journal of Cosemtic Dermatology 5: 121-126; IDS 03.15.22 in copending app and also submitted in the current file wrapper). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications are drawn to a composition comprising Spongilla and a second composition comprising a drug for treating a skin condition. The broad instant limitations to a drug composition comprising a drug product comprising a first composition and a second composition, wherein said first composition comprises Spongilla, and said second composition comprises one or more drugs in an amount effective to treat a skin condition in a subject would encompass the copending claims because the copending claims would be drawn to the same compositions (fillers can be considered a drug with the broadest reasonable interpretation) and a mere intended use of the composition would not distinguish one product from the other. It is also obvious to use a dermal filler in conjunction with Spongilla because Landau discloses combining chemical peels with dermal fillers, lactic acid, salicylic acid and with BTX-A (botulinum toxin A) injections having synergistic beneficial effect (at least p. 121, 124 and 125) and discloses a medium-depth peel comprising powder from Spongilla fluviatilis.
Claims 7-8, 68, 79, 86-98, 100-107, 11-112 and 115-116 and 130 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No.US 18/256,325 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to treating skin conditions using a first composition comprising Spongilla and a second composition which comprises botulinum toxins which are biological macromolecules which can be proteins. The additional limitations of the copending application specifically limit the amounts of ingredients, the types of toxins and different skin diseases which all can be inclusive of the instant application. Additionally when looking at the copending specifications hydrogen peroxide is described in as use with Spongilla as instantly being claimed and thus the applicant can potentially amend the claims to include these obvious aspects as currently described in the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the rejections 1 and 4 be held in abeyance until claims are found allowable and with regards to rejections number 2, 3 and 5 that they believe the rejections should be dropped since the present application has an earlier filing date than each reference in the rejection. The provisional double patenting is not the only rejection standing in the way of the claims and therefore the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Currently no claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB ANDREW BOECKELMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Terry McKelvey can be reached at 571-272-0775. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JACOB A BOECKELMAN Examiner, Art Unit 1655
/TERRY A MCKELVEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1655